New Scientist magazine and 'pregnant people'

[VeronicaBeccabunga]

Similarly to the Science Museum [in a previous thread] New Scientist magazine seems to be a bit lacking in basic science.
I've emailed them today about an article in this week's issue about the safety of covid-19 vaccines in pregnancy.
The article refers to 'pregnant people' about a dozen times, including in a photo caption, and to women only twice, once in a direct quote from the co-author of the study.
We are also told that, of the participants in the study, '97% identified as women'.
I feel sure that of all publications NS ought to know that 'pregnant people' are all women. It doesn't matter in the slightest how anyone 'identifies' in this context.
I'm disappointed in a magazine that I always thought was supportive of women in science, and believed to be factual.

Articles are not rigorously researched or peer reviewed. Articles about subjects I am an expert in are pretty poor.

• a turkey marching for Christmas.

@WandaWomblesaurus omg yes what complete and utter mumbo jumbo. Someone who is born one sex, but wants to live as another, is not going to keel over just because they see their real sex written down. They just aren’t. They will recognise it is their sex. Even if they are living as another. It’s not offensive just because someone says it is. It’s not a mental health trigger just because someone says it is.

For me that is the heart of it. Trans is overstepping an important line. If we have to change words belonging to one group of society ie women, because a subset of men or women decide it is offensive to them, without considering those who are women, we become a stupid playground 🛝 of word salad. At some point we will stop to function. If we can’t communicate without constant reordering to ever increasing nonsense.

Seriously though, do you think it's reasonable to be spoken to like this, Holly60? And then wonder why you get people's backs up?

Remember though… Holly is on the right side of history! Knowing that history can be very long and that what may be the ‘right side’ in five years, may be the total opposite and view with mockery in twenty, or two hundred is important to consider.

It what sex is every ‘pregnant person’. It doesn’t matter what you wish to be called. If you are bothered by the word then how will you find the whole process of being pregnant and giving birth?

This publication has used this wording because they are willing to accept that female people identify in different ways. I'm sorry you feel very strongly that this is wrong- that must be very frustrating.

But does the publication and are those with the same mindset as Holly66, willing to accept that if you repurpose the word woman to refer to an identity, then you no longer have a word to describe female humans? Why are they not bothered but the loss of essential words?

@GertrudeKerfuffle 👏🏻😂 brilliantly put!

I'm sorry you feel very strongly that this is wrong- that must be very frustrating.

You don't understand science do you? Trying to explain science can be frustrating, especially when a science magazine gets it wrong, but I teach for a living so here goes.

When you are comparing health outcomes there's a big difference between "individuals" who might equally be male or female and "individuals" who are only female. The comparison group for pregnant women should be all (or very nearly all) female. If they are not then we should be told. Some medical studies are only done on men but claim the results are universal. Comparing pregnant women to just men or to a group equally made up of women and men would not be valid. I expect that the scientist - who is not afraid to use the word "women" when it matters - did compare outcomes with non-pregnant women and this is just the journalist or perhaps a sub-editor not understanding that it makes a difference. Which is a crappy for a science magazine.

The comparison group for pregnant women should be all (or very nearly all) female. If they are not then we should be told.

Absolutely we should be told right across the world!! It would be a miracle and a marvel and much research necessary.

No, they are all female sexed

Yes, which is what being a woman means, regardless of the fact that some people wish to change that definition.

I've not yet seen a satisfactory explanation of why a very small part of the population should have the right to change the definition of half of the human race just because it wants to.

I've not yet seen a satisfactory explanation of why a very small part of the population should have the right to change the definition of half of the human race just because it wants to.

Because even the most passionate proponents realise it is a small group demanding that they ‘want’ it.

And eventually it sinks in that there are many trans people who don’t wish to be referred to by their biological functions or reminded that they have body parts they hate. And that it is an even smaller group insisting on the changes and that the passionate allies are harming other trans people.

It would be a miracle

If they found any pregnant male people it certainly would be a miracle!

Though for for a study of this kind, losing a few pregnant self-identified men and gaining a few male self-identified women probably wouldn't make a significant difference. Probably.

There are a lot of people who get upset at being in the obese category, there are also loads of people in complete denial that their child is overweight.

Therefore, all scientific articles about weight should dismiss what people actually are and instead what they think they would like to be. We'll see such a drop in obesity rates, we can call it a win (who cares about diabetes or heart disease)?

Or we can stick with the age old tradition of printing the truth, so it actually means something. If someone thinks it's all about them, they can seek help.

Have worked for this magazine & it's not certainly like a bunch of scientists sitting around a magazine

Sorry to hear a scientific magazine has gone to the cisdogs

@Helleofabore this whole concept of 'the right side of history' seems irrelevant to me. We can only put our views across and argue for the rights of women, here and now. I think you need a lot of hubris to claim you're on the right side of history. And, perhaps, a lack of rational arguments to back up your claims.

The authors of the original paper must be annoyed. The New Scientist report makes it look as if they've done shoddy research by including transwomen in the control group for a study of vaccine effects on pregnant women. But the original paper clearly states Study participants were pregnant and non-pregnant females aged 15–49 years. Yes, females. Not just people who identified as women.

GertrudeKerfuffle

I think anyone arguing they are on the right side history may have a limited understanding of history and just what ends up abiding and what changes with the ebbs and flows when rights conflict.

And absolutely there is a lack of rational arguments. Which is why they resort to ‘right side of history’ and an emotional manipulation. Because who wants to be seen as on the ‘wrong side of history’! Right?

Given the abstract used similar language to the NS article, it sounds like they'd approve tbh.

Amazing how many of those who talk about the right side of history have no understanding of contextualising history, no understanding of safeguarding or basic biology.

It's not possibly for a man to become pregnant.

This is basic human biology.

All 'pregnant people' are women.

I associate those telling us all it is all for our own good to accept this dehumanisation, to be on par with the critical thinking ability of those who come back with ‘you all have gender nuetral toilets in your houses’.

For the most part, it seems like a regurgitation of the trope some prominent self appointed influencers have been saying on social media. It sounds wonderful and clever until someone tries it on people who actually think their own thoughts and do some research beyond the superficial. Then it sounds just like another mantra.

I was at the Women's and Children Department of my local hospital for a scan the other day.

Now I'm not a poet but I wrote the following whilst I waited to be called in

Pregnant People

Sat there in the waiting room, waiting for a scan
Everyone a woman, though a few had brought their man

You could tell which ones were pregnant and definitely not a man
It was the women with the bellies on the way in for their scan.

Boiled x

Ahhhh! Lovely Beetle.

I agree the original paper used silly ‘pregnant people’ language too, throughout. But it did at least, just the once, state that they were all female!

It matters a lot because the push to replace sex with gender is going to make so much research worthless.

And it was such a massive breakthrough, quite recently, when the scientific and medical establishment started noticing how much research ignored women. Serious work in important areas such as differences in drug effects, car safety design etc. This was started to be recognised and tackled. Now it’s all getting muddied by genderwoo.

You’d almost think the genderists disliked women and didn’t want our health needs researched….

I've not yet seen a satisfactory explanation of why a very small part of the population should have the right to change the definition of half of the human race just because it wants to.
This, and this again!

No other reason necessary.